No comments about Heyday for Assassins (8 major assassinations).

5 comments about White Mischief.

1. This is a simply fascinating book for anyone interested in colonial Africa, murder mysteries and just plain good writing. The author James Fox, an erudite Eton graduate, does much more than simply describe the wild African setting, the fascinating murder involved and the absurdly decadent lifestyle of the characters involved. He also tracks the process of his research and the input of the quirky British author, Cyril Connelly who simultaneously studied the events at hand.

   Fox uses the murder of man-about-town Lord Erroll as a backdrop to chronicle the deterioration of a British subculture in the early 1900's. While war was being waged in Europe, this group of moneyed and titled hedonists (who left their kiddies back home) lived a surrealistic life of partying, drinking, drugging and partner swapping. Such a detached lifestyle virtually requires a murder or two as a logical conclusion.

   Although the accused, Lord "Jock" Delves Broughton, is aquitted in an African trial (with lots of perjury involved) Fox makes no secret of his opinion that Boughton was the culprit. That does not dampen the book one bit because it is the cast of characters and how they talk about each other that is the best part of the book. The only problem I had with Fox's ultimate theory is that he bases it upon an interview with an eccentric, elderly woman who was only 15 years old at the time of the crime. Although she claims the suspect confessed the crime to her immediately after its commission, she did not reveal that alleged fact to anyone until Fox interviewed her in the 1980's. As a legal professional, I find that kind of evidence inherently not credible. This woman had plenty of opportunity to reveal the alleged confession on many prior occasions and Fox's reasons for her failure to do so are a bit far-fetched.This slight criticism does not in any way demean the entire book however as the rest of Fox's research and conclusions based thereupon seem sound.

   All in all, this is a fascinating book that is hard to put down. The peripheral characters such as Alice de Janze and Lord Soames are equally as intriguing as the main characters.




2. If you ever had any royalist sentiment -- or harbored a feeling that British aristocrats are superior beings -- this book should cure you. The characters of "White Mischief" are about the most disgusting and useless bunch of parasites that can be imagined.
   
   "White Mischief" is about a murder in colonial Kenya in 1941 and the people who were involved in the case. The murderee was Josslyn Hay, 22nd Earl of Errol, and the accused murderer was Sir John Henry Delves Broughton. This book is an examination of the free and easy "Happy Valley" society that both belonged to, a recapitulation of the trial, and an examination of the evidence. The author's investigation, carried out over decades, includes interviews with people connected with the case, including the loathsome Diana, wife of the accused murderer and mistress of the murderee -- and a strong candidate among others to be the mastermind of the affair. (As this book, although non-fiction, is something of a murder mystery, I won't spoil it by revealing the author's conclusions as to who killed Lord Errol.)
   
   It's a crackin' good story, set in the splendid "White Highlands" of Kenya. To me "White Mischief" is also a cautionary tale of what happens when a privileged minority is allowed to run wild.
   
   Smallchief



3. The 1941 murder of Lord Erroll in Kenya would seem an irresistible subject for a writer: Erroll, an extremely handsome cad given to all number of vices, was gunned down one night and left in the wild after publicly cuckolding a fellow hereditary peer. The atmopshere of colonialist decadence the story provides is incredibly heady, and the first part of Fox's work detailing the central cast of characters and the murder itself has a real lurid charm (and it also provided the focus of the 1987 film version of the book with Charles Dance and Greta Scacchi). But then the book gets immersed in the trial of the cuckolded husband, Sir Jock Delves Broughton, and begins to get mired down in all manner of details that become very dull. Then near the midway point, Fox then details how his mentor, Cyril Connolly, became obsessed with Lord Erroll's murder and decided to write a book about it. Connolly is himself almost as much of a snob as the decadent aristocrats of Kenya's happy Valley implicated in the crime, and Fox too seems addicted to dropping names right and left. You become so lost in the sea of titled names that you begin to lose all interest in what otherwise would seem to be a can't-fail topic.



4. This brilliant book examines the story of the British colony of Kenya in the 1940s, particularly the white upper class that immigrated their as settlers and enjoyed themselves immensely. This is a culture that is vanished completely, both in England, with the class distinctions and 'public school' and in Africa and elswhere, where colonial societies have vanished.
   
   A brilliant study of a philandering wealthy society in the 'Happy Valley' settlement in Kenya, the 'White highlands' and the sort of folk who immigrated their. It examines the death of Lord Errol, a man of many disguises who loved not only women but also marriage to increase his wealth. This murder upset the small colony when it took place in 1941 and was a great scandal.
   
   This picture painted by this book is brilliant and loving, touching, interesting, history and novel rolled into one.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



5. Interesting and easy read - Fox has done his research well. My late husband's parents were Kenya settlers and his father had NO respect for the Happy Valley crowd AT ALL. Fox has certainly filled in many of the gaps left in the story my husband, Len Gill told me and has introduced me to a new side of some of the characters Len knew. I only wish I had read this book before my husband died of cancer. So many questions - so little time for answers.

1 comments about Orders to Kill: The Truth Behind the Murder of Martin Luther King.

1. Bill Pepper, a personel friend of Dr. King's later became James Earl Ray's defense lawyer. Upon hearing Ray's testimony the King family was also convinced of Ray's innocense. Pepper documents tha tragic day of King's death, the HSCA hearings and Ray's TV trial. We're also introduced to the stories from Ray about the mysterious Raul, who hired Ray as a bag man for his smuggling operation. Ray implicates Raul in the assasination, however Raul vanishes. There is much more to the story and I'm conviced that Ray was a patsy, much in the same way that Lee Harvey Oswald was. I look forward to the second book "Act of State" that picks up where "Orders to Kill", leaves off.

1 comments about Assassination: 20 Assassinations That Changed the World.

1. I liked the book. It definately lived up to the name. I would recommend this book for reports, information, or enjoyment.

No comments about THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION.

3 comments about 1963 JFK Assassination Documents and Warren Commission Report on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

1. This CD has several good bits of info and thumbnails of evdience photos but virtually all the Web links to the National Archives and Records Administration are broken. A good portion of the CD depends on these links to provide much of the information advertised. In addition, much of the CD is simply a listing of items of evidence in related groups and NOT the actual documents, photos or reports.

   Unless you just want to collect all things "Kennedy Assassination" I would recommend bypassing this CD produced by the U. S. Government.




2. My fellow Amazon.com customers, please let me tell you some facts about the Warren Commission and their report.
   Fact: Warren Commission member, Gerald Ford, admitted that the commission altered the true location of the wound in JFK's Back. Thats right, the wound was in JFK's BACK, and the commission moved the location of it up SIX INCHES closer to JFK'S neck area, "So that it would make more sense to the American People".
   Firstly, if this criminal act of altering the wound location on a murder victim's body happened in any courtroom in the US, the person(s) who did so, would be locked up.
   But because they were all bigwigs in the US government, the Warren Commission were allowed to lie to us.
   Secondly, that the commission would even feel the need to alter the location of the wound shows how much confidence they had in their own theory (None).
   If this was an open and shut case of a lone nut shooting Kennedy in the back, then why go to the trouble of lying about the location of the wound?
   There's only one reason why: Because if the true location of the wound in Kennedy's BACK was made known, there cannot be a single bullet passing through both JFK and Governor John connally, and if you dont have a single bullet going through both men, then you have, by definition, a Conspiracy, because the rifle that they say Oswald used to supposedly fire the shots, could not, by the commission's own time sequence, have fired a shot and Kennedy AND a shot at Connally so quickly afterwards. ONLY A SECOND GUNMAN could have fired the shot that hit Connally.
   But instead of admitting this, the commission said the hell with the American public and they lied to us.
   Fact: This is a moot point, because the shot that hit kennedy in the throat was a FRONTAL shot, fired from the grassy knoll. The doctors who saw Kennedy's throat wound before it was forever altered (innocently) by a tracheostomy procedure, all said the same thing....."The wound in Kennedy's throat was a wound of entrance".
   Oswald, nor anybody else in a building behind the motorcade could have fired that shot. Only a gunman in FRONT of the motorcade could have fired that shot. This proves that a conspiracy killed our president.
   Further proof of a conspiracy came at the autopsy of the President on the night of his assassination. One of the autopsy surgeons STUCK HIS FINGER INTO THE BACK WOUND TO KENNEDY AND FOUND THAT THE BULLET ONLY PENETRATED KENNEDY'S BACK TO A LENGTH OF A FINGER! THIS MEANS THAT THE BULLET THAT HIT KENNEDY IN THE BACK DID NOT EXIT! If this bullet doesnt exit (and it was proven at the autopsy that it didnt), then obviously, the bullet cannot go on to strike Governor Connally, meaning that Connally was hit by a bullet fired from a second gunman, which proves conspiracy!
   I wont even go into the fact that Kennedy had a large EXIT wound in the BACK of his head, that could only have come from the grassy knoll.
   I dont have enough room to explain all of that in this review.
   Instead I want to tell you what the sole purpose of the commission was, as evidenced by a secret memo from the acting attorney general under Lyndon Johnson, Nicholas Katzenbach.
   Just hours after Oswald was killed, Katzenbach sent a memo to key members of the government. And in this memo, was his recommendation on what the official goverment "Protocol" was going to be concerning the murder of JFK.
   In this memo, Katzenbach said "The public must be satisfied that there wasnt a conspiracy. The public must be convinced that Oswald was the assassin, that he did not have confederates that are still at large, and that he would have been convicted at a trial".
   And in this memo, lies the beginning of the cover-up to conceal the truth about who truly killed our President.
   The Warren Commission's sole purpose was NOT to investigate the case........this memo proves that the government already decided before any investigation actually took place, that their sole purpose was to
   "Satisfy the public that there wasnt a conspiracy to kill Kennedy". The truth never mattered to them, nor did we the people matter to them. Only politics mattered.
   President Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy after JFK's death, blackmailed Chief justice Earl Warren and other Commission members into helping the government sell their "lemon" to the American public. We didnt buy it.
   Earl Warren originally DECLINED Johnson's "offer" to head a Commission that would investigate the President's death. But Johnson in his blackmail of Warren said "Now Earl, you WILL head this commission, because if you dont put a stop to these conspiracy rumors, the conspiracy rumors will spread, and if they spread and the public thinks that Castro or the Soviets were behind the assassination of Kennedy, there will be a nuclear war, and half of the Eastern seaboard will be wiped out, and you will have the blood of 40 million Americans on your hands"
   Obviously, after the President of the U.S. says such a thing, Warren had no choice but to go along with this protocol (cover-up).
   He is said to have walked out of Johnson's office in tears.
   So, we can clearly see that the government had one agenda and one agenda only: PUT AN END TO CONSPIRACY RUMORS.
   How do you put an end to conspiracy rumors? There is only ONE way: To find a lone nut guilty of the crime. To "satisfy the public that Oswald was the assassin, and that he didnt have confederates who are still at large".
   Enter the Warren Commission.
   And the rest is fictional history.
   Now, I ask you, after learning these things, do you really want to give more money to these people, who had such a disregard for Americans, that they would lie to us......do you really want to make them MORE financially powerful than they already are, and thus allow them to continue their charade against this great country of ours?
   They wont get a penny from me. I see the Warren report for what it is: Political propaganda based in fiction.
   Years after the release of the Warren report, some of the members of the Commission themselves said that they didnt agree with the commission's findings.
   Why did they appear to agree with the findings at first? Because they had to. They had to sell this lie to the American people to "put an end to conspiracy rumors".
   In truth, the commission themselves knew that what they said wasnt true.
   President Johnson said that he DISAGREED with the commision's findings!
   Thus, Johnson, the founding father of the commission, the man who created them, didnt even agree with them!
   If their own members didnt agree with them, and the man who created them didnt agree with them, why would you, the Amazon customer want to waste your money on an obvious lie?
   There was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, and unlike the Warren report, thats no lie.
   Thanks for reading my review.



3. In 1964, the seven-member "Warren Commission" published a lengthy Final Report and 26 supporting volumes of exhibits and testimony surrounding the evidence and investigation of President John F. Kennedy's assassination almost a year earlier. (The complete text of the final Warren Commission Report is included on this CD-ROM.)
   
   The "Single-Bullet Theory" plays a major role in the Commission's ultimate conclusion that just one assassin (Lee Harvey Oswald) killed President Kennedy.
   
   Conspiracy theorists take great pleasure in vigorously disagreeing with the WC and, in particular, with the "SBT". But, even with its many naysayers, the Single-Bullet Conclusion reached by the WC still holds up today. And it still holds up because ALL of the physical evidence supports that one-bullet conclusion.
   
   Plus (and nearly as important a factor), there is the LACK of any substantive evidence which would favor a DIFFERENT version of the shooting being more probable than the SBT. For instance: a lack of bullets, a lack of limousine damage, and a total lack of internal injuries to John Kennedy's back and neck, to name but three things that are totally "lacking" if some OTHER non-SBT "theory" is to be believed.
   
   Many conspiracists like to tout the testimony of Governor John B. Connally (the other wounded victim who was riding with President Kennedy in the limo on that fateful day of November 22, 1963) as being virtual "proof" that the SBT is a wild fantasy, dreamed up for the sake of sheer convenience by the Warren Commission and its associated counsel members.
   
   But, in point of fact, Governor Connally's version of the shooting (which is that he was hit by a separate bullet than the one that first struck JFK) is not a reliable version at all. And this fact should be quite obvious to anyone who has studied the statements made by Mr. Connally himself.
   
   I say that because.......
   
   It doesn't matter at all what John Connally "thinks" occurred with respect to when JFK was first wounded -- because Connally, by his own admission and testimony, NEVER SAW (even fleetingly) President Kennedy at ANY point after the gunshots began to ring out in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. .....
   
   QUESTION -- "Did you observe any reaction by President Kennedy after the shooting?"
   
   GOV. CONNALLY -- "No, I did not see him."
   
   QUESTION -- "Did you observe any reaction by Mrs. Kennedy after the shooting?"
   
   GOV. CONNALLY -- "I did not see her. This almost sounds incredible, I am sure, since we were in the car with them. But again I will repeat very briefly when what I believe to be the shot first occurred .... I turned to my right, which was away from both of them, of course, and looked out and could see neither, and then as I was turning to look into the back seat where I would have seen both of them, I was hit, so I never completed the turn at all, and I never saw either one of them after the firing started." -- Testimony given to the Warren Commission in 1964 by John B. Connally
   
   
   By way of Mr. Connally's own words -- "No, I did not see him" -- there is no possible way (based on any of his OWN personal observations) that the Governor could have known with any certainty exactly which of the gunshots first struck the body of John F. Kennedy (who was sitting directly behind Connally).
   
   And the following additional WC testimony from Connally gives further indication that the Governor could not have known which of the specific gunshots initially struck JFK:
   
   QUESTION -- "Did President Kennedy make any statement during the time of the shooting or immediately prior thereto?"
   
   GOV. CONNALLY -- "He never uttered a sound at all that I heard."
   
   
   The ONLY person within the immediate vicinity of the shooting who was LESS qualified than Governor Connally to tell the world exactly which shot hit JFK (or which one might not have hit him) would probably have been Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who was seated in the front seat of the Presidential limousine next to driver Bill Greer (and who was, like Mr. Connally, facing the other direction, and not looking at the President during the time of the actual shooting).
   
   John Connally's never-wavering testimony regarding the specific topic of "Which shot first hit JFK?" is a personal opinion which is based almost completely on his wife's testimony. It certainly CANNOT be based on the Governor's PERSONAL knowledge of knowing what shot (#1 or #2) hit President Kennedy in the upper back -- because he HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS INFORMATION.
   
   Connally's EARwitness testimony is valuable -- yes. His EYEwitness testimony with regard to JFK's initial wounding is worthless and means NOTHING -- because he saw nothing with regard to the President's wounding. Period.
   
   JBC's testimony, when evaluated in total, also PERFECTLY fits the SBT, whether he thought it did or not. It backs up the details of the SBT to perfection. -- "The first shot did not hit me. ... Then I WAS hit. ... The third shot did not hit me. ... I was immediately covered with blood and brain tissue {from the President's head wound after the third shot}".
   
   Mr. Connally, oddly, was actually simultaneously both the BEST and the WORST witness to the assassination that Friday afternoon. He was by FAR the best witness in some ways -- because he was the only person in Dealey Plaza who could relate the sequence of events via the added standpoint of being able to time-stamp his OWN wounding, and then being able to correlate that event to what he heard re. the remainder of the gunfire as well.*
   
   * = Bystander and assassination witness James Tague could also be considered such a witness -- but he's actually not, since (by his own admission in various publications) he didn't even recall being struck in the face by something during the shooting until several minutes AFTER the gunfire had ceased. His "memory" of something that failed to register clearly in his mind at the time it occurred is not a valuable research tool re. the precise timing of the three shots, IMO.
   
   Connally's own wounding, however, created an indelible imprint upon his memory at the time it was occurring -- and, as mentioned previously, his testimony of positively NOT being hit by Shot #1, being hit by Shot #2, and then hearing but not being hit by the third and final shot perfectly fits the Single-Bullet Theory scenario.
   
   Any other post-November 22nd comments he might have made re. JFK's wounding are simply pure guesses on the part of Mr. Connally, since he was looking in the opposite direction from the President at the key time in question. This critical fact renders his testimony regarding what he himself "saw" with his own two eyes literally meaningless with respect to the first "JFK hit" -- because JBC had his back to the President the whole time.
   
   In fact, Mr. Connally (who died in June 1993 at the age of 76) actually should have had "NO FIRM OPINION" whenever he discussed the specific topic of exactly which shot first hit the President. By stating publicly over the years that he knew for an absolute fact that he was hit by a different shot from the one which first hit JFK was, IMO, rather irresponsible on the Governor's behalf -- because that is first-hand knowledge that Mr. Connally NEVER possessed in this case.
   
   It was only due to SECOND-hand accounts of the shooting (i.e., testimony given by other witnesses and, mainly, his wife Nellie's version of the event) that Mr. Connally arrived at his "I Was Hit By A Different Shot" version of the shooting. And nobody can possibly dispute this fact, because it's true beyond question (unless Mr. Connally had eyes in the back of his head, that is).**
   
   ** = Important Footnote Re. This Issue Of John Connally's Beliefs --- It was very recently that I was reminded of an interview that was given by Mr. Connally in 1967 (conducted by CBS-TV News), an interview which contained some very interesting remarks by JBC that I had totally forgotten had existed until re-watching that CBS program recently.....
   
   John Connally is on tape/film telling the world that the Single-Bullet Theory is "possible".
   
   Most conspiracy theorists I've encountered always cite Mr. Connally's steadfast refusal to admit that the SBT was even a remote possibility (which I believe was JBC's stance in the latter years of his life). But anyone with a copy of the CBS multi-part program "The Warren Report" can see for themselves that Connally's opinion on the matter was certainly NOT rooted firmly in anti-SBT concrete, circa 1967.
   
   Here are Mr. Connally's exact words from Part 2 of that television special:
   
   "The only way that I could ever reconcile my memory of what happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-Bullet Theory is .... it HAD to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us both." -- Governor John B. Connally; Via on-camera interview with CBS-TV News; 1967
   
   When the interviewer (who, btw, was Eddie Barker, who was part of the original 11/22/63 TV coverage for Dallas CBS affiliate KRLD-TV) then asked JBC the follow-up question of -- "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first bullet could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit President Kennedy?".....
   
   Connally's immediate response was -- "That's possible. That's possible."
   
   That scenario of the second gunshot equating to the "SBT" shot, which Governor Connally admitted back in '67 to having been "possible", also perfectly corresponds to other evidence in the case which bolsters the likelihood of the SBT being an absolute fact, including Mr. Connally's always-unshakable stance, which is repeated again for the CBS cameras in that 1967 program, of -- "the first bullet did NOT hit me....the second bullet DID hit me".
   
   Mr. Connally also gave this on-camera statement during that same '67 "Warren Report" special .... "All I can say, with any finality, if the Single-Bullet Theory IS correct, then it had to be the second bullet that hit President Kennedy and me."
   
   Therefore, the above almost-forgotten words spoken by Governor Connally should (IMO) forever erase the widely-accepted erroneous idea that Mr. Connally never even once admitted that he thought the SBT could have possibly occurred that day in Dallas.
   
   IMO, the witnesses (including Mrs. Nellie Connally) who claim the first shot struck JFK are wrong. Those witnesses are wrong based, quite simply, on the verifiable, ironclad pieces of evidence that favor a lone gunman firing from the Book Depository (e.g., hard physical evidence such as the actual bullets and bullet fragments in the case, which all were fired from the same rifle -- Oswald's #C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano). This evidence also supports the SBT, of course, and the three-shot scenario of.....
   
   Shot #1 -- Missed shot (which probably struck James Tague near the Underpass).
   Shot #2 -- The "SBT" shot.
   Shot #3 -- The fatal JFK head shot.
   
   In the specific case of Nellie Connally's account of the shooting, I'm confident I can fully explain the logical reasons as to why her firm and steadfast belief that her husband and JFK were hit by separate shots is 100% incorrect. .....
   
   Nellie simply did not SEE the several "involuntary" reactions and signs of a bullet strike to her husband's body (which can be observed while viewing the Zapruder Film at approx. frames Z224-Z227). She never noticed the following:
   
   1.) John Connally's right shoulder being driven forward and downward at Z224.
   2.) JBC's open mouth and "grimace" at precisely Z225 (an instant after the bullet struck).
   3.) JBC's quick movement of his cowboy hat, starting at Z226 or so, and lasting just a fraction of a second.
   4.) Nor was the JBC lapel "flip" noticed by Nellie. (Although the lapel movement might be a combination of the bullet and other "unexplained forces" of some ilk {IMO}.)
   
   Nellie first notices her husband's distress only AFTER a time when she can already see JFK's hands rising to his throat/mouth area. John Connally displayed no such obvious and immediately-noticeable (by Nellie) reaction to having been shot; therefore, in Nellie's mind, the two "hits" to the two men came at separate times.
   
   Via what I consider to be the above very logical explanation of what Mrs. Connally saw and THOUGHT happened vs. what TRULY did occur (based on the Z-Film evidence), Nellie's testimony is perfectly reasonable IN HER MIND (based on what she SAW only), but it's also incorrect overall, based on other evidence of JBC being struck by gunfire that can be found on the frames of Abraham Zapruder's motion picture.
   
   ----------------
   
   When speaking of the specific number of gunshots that they think were fired and from what direction those shots originated, both Governor and Mrs. Connally were two of the many witnesses who always shared the same belief regarding the number of shots that were fired that day (three), and the source of all of the gunfire (from behind the car). .....
   
   QUESTION -- "What was your impression then as to the source of the {first} shot?"
   
   GOV. CONNALLY -- "From back over my right shoulder which, again, was where immediately when I heard the first shot I identified the sound as coming, back over my right shoulder."
   
   QUESTION -- "At an elevation?"
   
   GOV. CONNALLY -- "At an elevation. I would have guessed at an elevation."
   
   QUESTION -- "Did you have an impression as to the source of the third shot?"
   
   GOV. CONNALLY -- "The same. I would say the same."
   
   
   A brief video clip of both John and Nellie Connally discussing the direction of the gunshots can be accessed here:
   
   http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/connally.ram
   
   
   Governor Connally testified that he didn't hear the middle (or second) shot, which was the one that actually hit him. But his literally feeling the effects of that second shot, quite obviously, provides even more substantial proof of its having been fired (regardless of whether Mr. Connally physically heard the shot or not).
   
   Based on the bulk of the evidence, all of the gunshots that were fired on November 22 came from the 6th-Floor southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository Building located at 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas, USA.
   
   The weight of the physical and circumstantial evidence also supports the ultimate conclusion reached in 1964 by the Warren Commission of those three rifle shots having all been fired by lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
   
   The ONLY TWO BULLETS which are known to have struck any victim in the Presidential limousine were linked to Mr. Oswald's 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, which he purchased using a fake name (A.J. Hidell) in March of 1963, which happened to be just a matter of days before Oswald tried to take the life of his first would-be assassination victim -- Retired U.S. Army Major General Edwin A. Walker. On Wednesday night, April 10th, 1963, Walker's life was barely spared when Oswald's one shot fired at the General hit a portion of a window sill, with the bullet being deflected and thereby missing the shooter's human target.
   
   A little more than seven months later, however, the killer's aim was (unfortunately) quite a bit better, and that very same rifle would be the device utilized by ex-Marine Lee Harvey Oswald to take the life of America's 35th President in Dallas, Texas.
   
   -----------------------------
   
   "Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out the tragic shooting all by himself. .... In fact, you could throw 80 percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the crime. .... The Warren Commission looked at a tremendous amount of evidence and concluded that Oswald acted alone. I've studied the evidence, and I agree." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 1986
   
   -----------------------------
   
   "I am trying to finish my book on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. There is a need for a book on the non-pro-conspiracy side. My view is that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. I know that somewhere between 75 percent and 80 percent of the American people believe he was the victim of a conspiracy.
   
   "But I want to tell you a story. I was speaking in Toronto on tactics and techniques used in the movie 'JFK' just after the Oliver Stone movie was released. After the speech, there was a Q & A, and I asked for a show of hands of how many believed the assassination was a conspiracy. It was 80 percent to 90 percent of the audience.
   
   "Then I said that I'd like to have a show of hands as to how many saw the movie 'JFK' or at any time in the past had read a book rejecting the Warren Commission or believing in a conspiracy. Again, there was an enormous show of hands. I told them they should hear both sides of the story before making up their minds. With that thought in mind, I asked how many had read the Warren Report. Hardly any raised their hands.
   
   "Very few had heard both sides of the story. It was easier and more romantic to believe in the conspiracy. My book will show otherwise. Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common sense." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 1997
   
   -----------------------------
   
   "I am writing two volumes on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted alone." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 2001

4 comments about Lincoln's Avengers: Justice, Revenge, and Reunion after the Civil War.

1. The shock and deep mourning our nation went into in April 1865 is something we have never really gotten over. The first presidential assassination, that of Abraham Lincoln, has prompted countless books ever since, and endless questions of what our nation would have been like had he lived. It might be thought that all the details have been covered, but Elizabeth D. Leonard, a professor of history at Colby College, has found a flawed hero who supervised the hunt and prosecution of the conspirators that killed Lincoln; his story is told in her book _Lincoln's Avengers: Justice, Revenge, and Reunion after the Civil War_ (Norton). Of course the plotters' dirty work is covered here, and their prosecution and sentencing; it may be familiar, but it is told with vivid detail. What is different in Leonard's book is that she shows how the political and national mood after the Civil War changed the outcome of those proceedings, which in turn had effects on Reconstruction itself.

   Leonard tells this story by examining the life and work of Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt, a former slaveholder who during the civil war was in charge of thousands of military commissions to prosecute both soldiers and civilians. The day after Lincoln's assassination, Holt took charge of the detection of the conspirators and their prosecution. It was only a matter of months before the military commission tried the conspirators, found all of them guilty, hanged four (including Mary Surratt, the first woman executed by the federal government) and imprisoned the others. Many histories of these events end there, but Holt thought he was just getting started. He had concluded that the assassination plot was instigated by Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, and he was eager to pursue military commissions against them as well. However, his support from President Johnson waned. Setting up conflicts that would eventually get him impeached, Johnson pardoned thousands of Confederate leaders, and having declared the war officially over, removed any possibility that military commissions could continue. He transferred Davis from military to civilian custody in Virginia, where he was released on bail. The Supreme Court, in the famous _Ex Parte Milligan_ decision, overturned the military commission's conviction of civilian Confederate sympathizers. Davis would never be brought before Holt's military commission.

   There was the possibility that Davis might be tried in a civilian court, but Holt never got the hard evidence that would have been needed for a conviction. Holt was led to bad judgements such as reliance on dubious, venal witnesses. After a couple of years, Davis was completely free. In 1867, Holt had a chance for a conviction (in civilian court) of Mary Surratt's son who had been captured overseas, but the divided jury, reflecting the divisions of the nation, did not convict. Holt's further vengeance would never come, but his efforts, as written about by Leonard in this well-researched volume, will be satisfying reading for anyone interested in the Civil War and the troubling era of Reconstruction thereafter.




2. Elizabeth D. Leonard's Lincoln's Avengers is a different sort of Lincoln murder book. It does have all the usual suspects and covers all of their details adequately, particulary the issues surrounding Mary Surratt. The book's strength, however, is to look at the events through the eyes of Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt as a way to see the tragedy not so much as the last gasp of the Civil War but as the first shot in the battle over Reconstruction. If nothing else, and there is much else, it gives the reader a chance to clearly glimpse a lesser known figure of history in Holt. The most riveting sections of the book involve his determinatin to avenge the murder, as well as all the other injustices he saw from the civil war, as Andrew Johnson devises an entirely different plan for the South. A powerful and important addition to books on the this fascinating period of time.



3. This book definitely adds new information to the usual renditions of the Lincoln assassination, by focusing on the conspirators' trial and especially Joseph Holt's role in that event. The book is well researched, objective, and good at placing events within the context of the 19th-century mindset and values that prevailed in the wake of Lincoln's death.



4. What many of us know about Lincoln's assasination is probably limited to the following: he was killed by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theater while attending a play. This book enlarges that knowledge from the point of view of Judge Advocate Joseph Holt, who made it his personal mission to bring anyone involved in the assasination to justice. In addition, Holt's goal was also to bring the highest leaders of the Confederacy to justice, including former Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Professor Leonard also places the events following assasination, especially the trial of the first eight, and subsequent attempts to bring others to justice, in the context of Reconstruction and the division among the victorius Union about how to effect it, particularly whether to do so punitively or with mercy. The reader has a clear sense of all the forces at play and how they interacted and influenced events in such a way to impact US political and racial developments for a long time to come.
   
   The personal stories are gripping, not only of Holt but especially that of Mary Surrat, one of the eight co-conspirators tried and one of the four who was executed by hanging. The details of the story leave one wondering whether Mary Surrat was ultimately guilty or not, and to Leonard's credit, she presents only the historical evidence, without attempting to sway the reader one way or another.
   
   If you want to learn more about this pivotal event in American history, this is a good book with which to start.

2 comments about Algeria: Revolution Revisited (Islamic World Report).

1. The book starts witha promising introduction but falls into serious errors concerning the political climate in Algeria. As an Algerian, the author appears to have his head in the clouds and his commentary is shot through with a basic naievete about the affairs governing Algeria. A very poor attempt at poltical analysis.



2. I am somewhat inclined to agree with the other reviewers over this one. As a western journalist who has visited Algeria many times over the last few years I can understand why it over-simplifies the case. I am often in a position where I am asked about Algeria and my usual response is to make people understand that it is a situation which is very complex and does not give in to the type of analysis which is common among some journalists.I am afraid to say that this book also belongs to the same category of journalism which starts off with an approach containing a series of assumptions which are then not substantiated with good analysis.

   R.Wakeman

3 comments about Death In Hyde Park.

1. The husband and wife team who write under the pen name of Robin Paige are making wide inroads into the period thriller field. What a prolific pair - the duo have penned more than 60 books for young adults and she (Susan Wittig Albert) is also the author of the China Bayles mysteries.

   Their last Victorian mystery, Glamis Castle, ranked high with readers, and "Death In Hyde Park" will undoubtedly do the same as the writers deftly explore turn-of-the-century methods of crime detection and create intriguing fictional characters who mix with actual persons of that time - in this case, Jack London.

   The year is 1902 when Prince Albert is due to replace the exalted Queen Victoria on the throne to become King Edward VII. Just as it rains on many parades, there was a damp chilly rain falling on Coronation Day. However, there's more than inclement weather to mar what was meant to be a celebration. An anarchist, Yuri Messenko, believed that "Assassination was a moral response to the immoral institutions and governments that spawned" what he perceived as horrors. Further, he was desperately in love with the very mysterious Charlotte Conway, editor of the newspaper where he is employed. Thus, for these two reasons he intended to send the newly crowned king to his heavenly reward by detonating a bomb.

   However, Yuri was an inept assassin - he tripped, fell on his satchel, and blew himself into pieces. Suspecting that there was more than one involved in the attempt on his life the new King asks his friends, Lord Charles Sheridan and his wife, Kate, to investigate.

   The Sheridans unearth many clues, all of which lead them in different directions. Their investigation takes a more intriguing turn when the beautiful Charlotte turns up in their home. She has been romantically involved not with Yuri but with American writer Jack London.

   As always the Sheridans do manage to unravel this tangled mystery and emerge unscathed. For those who take their mysteries with dashes of period drama "Death In Hyde Park" should be on their list of must-reads.

   - Gail Cooke




2. This tenth book in the Kate and Charles Sheridan series deals with the problem of terrorists (or anarchists as they were called then) in England. Apparently in 1902, during the reign of Edward VII, there was fear of this type of violent action. England has just retreated from the Boer War, and they find that their "Jolly Old" is full of foreigners, and surely some of those foreigners must be dangerous! This book is not a mystery story at all. The only death is an accident when a bomb actually blows up the person who was carrying it. It appeared that the bomb was meant for the King and Queen on his Coronation Day. Charles is asked by his King to find out if there is a real anarchist threat, or whether or not this was an isolated incident. The characters are pretty good, and Kate and Charles are delightful as always. Also the writing team of Bill and Susan Albert (pseudonymously knows as Robin Paige) have done their homework. They do a good job of providing enough historical detail, and actual historical people (in this case the American author Jack London), to make the story interesting. This wasn't a bad effort in my mind.



3. Fans of this series will already be very familiar with Queen Victoria's son, who is being coroneted Edward VII as this book begins. The new king has appeared in several of these books and has become very aware of Lord Charles and Lady Kathryn Sheridan's sleuthing abilities. On Coronation Day there is an explosion in Hyde Park and shortly thereafter the king asks Charles to determine the depth of the plot and the extent of the danger to the royal family in the future.
   
   This is by no means a traditional murder mystery for there is no real murder. The explosion was caused when a bumbling young anarchist trips and falls on his own bomb, blowing himself up and injuring no one else. This book is really more of a fictional version of a true crime novel with a strong political message. Depending upon one's political leanings, the political message may or may not be welcome but it is a very strong thread that runs from cover to cover. The authors even go so far as to tag an inspector who is willing to break any law and violate any civil liberty with the name of Ashcraft.
   
   Soon after the bombing an anarchist newspaper where the young bomber worked is raided and three men on the premises are arrested. One of the men is not an anarchist at all but is just there to take the paper's lovely editor Charlotte Conway to lunch. This young man is a Labor leader and has worked with Charles before so that his protestations of innocence fall on fertile ground. When bottles containing nitric acid are found in the living quarters of all three men Charles uses his vast knowledge of the new science of fingerprinting to find out just how those bottles got there. All three men of course say that they have never seen those bottles. The investigation then moves into a courtroom setting and the defense lawyer Charles has hired uses Charles' fingerprint evidence to great advantage. This courtroom drama is easily the most enjoyable part of the book.
   
   As is normally the case with the books of this series, a real historical figure plays a major role in the story and in this case it is novelist Jack London. I really don't know that much about Mr. London's life but I dare say that his fans will not like the portrait of him that is painted in this book. Fans of this series may be a little put off by the fact that Kate does very little snooping in this story and mostly just presides over a tangle of sexual misconduct while comforting the victim left behind.
   
   I found this book to be slow reading at times, although at other times it was a page-turner. What mystery there was seemed shallow and some of the characters came across as very one-dimensional. On the other hand, I just can't say enough good things about the court scenes, which saved this book from being very ordinary. While I tend to agree with the author's concern about our civil liberties in light of the current terrorist threat, I think that they may have gotten too caught up in their message, with the story suffering as a consequence. This is not my least favorite of the series, but its close.

No comments about Assassination of Heydrich.